Deoxy-sphingolipids, oxidative stress, and vitamin C correlate with qualitative and quantitative patterns of small fiber dysfunction and degeneration

Defined by dysfunction or degeneration of Aδ and C fibers, small fiber neuropathies (SFNs) entail a relevant health burden. In 50% of cases, the underlying cause cannot be identified or treated. In 100 individuals (70% female individuals; mean age: 44.8 years) with an idiopathic, skin biopsy-confirmed SFN, we characterized the symptomatic spectrum and measured markers of oxidative stress (vitamin C, selenium, and glutathione) and inflammation (transforming growth factor beta, tumor necrosis factor alpha), as well as neurotoxic 1-deoxy-sphingolipids. Neuropathic pain was the most abundant symptom (95%) and cause of daily life impairment (72%). Despite the common use of pain killers (64%), the painDETECT questionnaire revealed scores above 13 points in 80% of patients. In the quantitative sensory testing (QST), a dysfunction of Aδ fibers was observed in 70% and of C fibers in 44%, affecting the face, hands, or feet. Despite normal nerve conduction studies, QST revealed Aβ fiber involvement in 46% of patients' test areas. Despite absence of diabetes mellitus or mutations in SPTLC1 or SPTLC2 , plasma 1-deoxy-sphingolipids were significantly higher in the sensory loss patient cluster when compared with those in patients with thermal hyperalgesia ( P 25 kg/m 2 ), or hyperlipidemia showed significantly lower L-serine (arterial hypertension: P < 0.01) and higher 1-deoxy-sphingolipid levels (arterial hypertension: P < 0.001, overweight: P < 0.001, hyperlipidemia: P < 0.01). Lower vitamin C levels correlated with functional Aβ involvement ( P < 0.05). Reduced glutathione was lower in patients with Aδ dysfunction ( P < 0.05). Idiopathic SFNs are heterogeneous. As a new pathomechanism, plasma 1-deoxy-sphingolipids might link the metabolic syndrome with small fiber degeneration

Measuring what matters: Assessing the full suite of benefits of OHF investments

Funding provided from the Outdoor Heritage fund as part of the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendmen

No cure, no care? Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in rare neuropathic pain syndromes

Abstract body: Children, who are born without any perception of pain, tend to develop a severe phenotype of self-injury. Pain, despite being a dreadful experience, is an important warning signal that prevents us from cutting, biting, or burning ourselves. Neuropathic pain, on the other hand, constitutes an impactful health burden as well. We examined a cohort of 100 idiopathic small fiber neuropathy patients (70% female; mean age: 44.8 years), in whom neuropathic pain was the most abundant symptom (95%) and cause of daily life impairment (72%). As a potential risk factors, we found that metabolic syndrome leads to an increase in neurotoxic 1-deoxy-sphingolipids, which were significantly higher in the “sensory loss” patient cluster compared to ''thermal hyperalgesia'' (p<0.01) or “healthy” (p<0.1) and correlated inversely with the patients’ intraepidermal nerve fiber density (1-deoxy-SA: p<0.05, 1-deoxy-SO: p<0.01). Alongside acquired causes of neuropathic gain or loss of pain, pathogenic variants in genes like SCN9A, SCN10A, or SCN11A can have a significant impact on pain perception. These genes encode voltage-gated sodium channels expressed in C nerve fibers that are important for the generation and upstroke of sensory nerve action potentials. It might sound logic that gain-of-function is associated with gain of pain (examples: specific pathogenic missense mutations in SCN9A and SCN11A, associated with an autosomal dominant inheritance), whereas biallelic loss-of-function mutations in SCN9A cause insensitivity to pain (see above). If a channel's function is extremely increased (specific heterozygous mutations in SCN11A), this can, however, likewise prevent a nerve from demonstrating a regular firing pattern, so that pain perception is reduced. This presentation contains real-life examples of neuropathic pain disorders, illustrating the important balance between too much or too little pain. We will link known pathomechanisms with phenotype details and open a discussion for further treatment considerations, including both aspects on cure and care

Carbamazepine for Chronic Muscle Pain: A Retrospective Assessment of Indications, Side Effects, and Treatment Response

Myopathies fall under the umbrella of rare diseases, however, muscle pain is a relevant, under-recognized symptom with limited treatment options. Carbamazepine is an oral sodium channel blocker approved for the treatment of seizures and neuropathic pain. In 54 individuals receiving carbamazepine for muscle pain, we retrospectively assessed the subjective treatment response, side effects, and reasons for carbamazepine discontinuation. The underlying diagnoses leading to muscle pain were diverse, ranging from metabolic (n = 5) and other hereditary (n = 9) to acquired (n = 2) myopathies and myotonia syndromes (n = 22). Under carbamazepine (daily dose 254 ± 138 mg), patients reported a significant reduction of pain, quantified by an 11-point numeric rating scale (−1.9 ± 1.8, p n = 18) such as fatigue, elevated liver enzymes, and diarrhea, as well as lack of pain improvement (n = 6), led to carbamazepine discontinuation in 44.4% (24/54). Mediated by dysfunctional Aδ-nerve fibers, muscle pain is common in a variety of myopathies. Carbamazepine may reduce pain levels, but comes with therapy-limiting side effects

A randomized double-blind controlled trial to assess the benefits of amisulpride and olanzapine combination treatment versus each monotherapy in acutely ill schizophrenia patients (COMBINE): methods and design

This report presents the rationale and design of a multi-center clinical trial that examines the efficacy and safety of antipsychotic combination treatment in acutely ill schizophrenia patients compared to antipsychotic monotherapy. Antipsychotic combination treatment is common in clinical practice worldwide, despite clinical guidelines generally not recommending such practice due to lacking evidence for its efficacy and safety. Olanzapine has a related chemical structure and comparable receptor-binding profile as clozapine, which demonstrated superior efficacy in combination studies, but has a more unfavorable side-effect profile compared to olanzapine. Amisulpride and olanzapine have shown promising therapeutic efficacy in meta-analyses in monotherapy for people with schizophrenia. Combining amisulpride and olanzapine, complementary receptor-binding properties may enhance efficacy and possibly reduce (or at least not augment) side effects due to the different receptor profiles and metabolization pathways. Accordingly, we hypothesize that patients treated with amisulpride plus olanzapine show greater improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score after 8 weeks versus either monotherapy. A randomized, double-blind controlled trial is performed at 16 German centers comparing flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (400-800 mg/day), and olanzapine (10-20 mg/day) and amisulpride-olanzapine co-treatment. Sample size was calculated to be n = 101 per treatment arm, assuming an effect size of 0.500 and a two-sided alpha = 0.025 and beta = 0.90. Recruitment for this trial started in June 2012. Until December 2018, 328 patients have been randomized. Trial conduct has been extended to reach the projected sample size. Publication of the study results is expected in 2019 informing an evidence-based recommendation regarding specific antipsychotic combination treatment

Amisulpride and olanzapine combination treatment versus each monotherapy in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia in Germany (COMBINE): a double-blind randomised controlled trial

Background Combining antipsychotics is common in schizophrenia treatment, despite evidence-based guidelines generally not recommending such practice. Otherwise, evidence remains inconclusive, especially regarding specific combinations. The trial aimed to test whether a combination of amisulpride plus olanzapine is more effective than either intervention as a monotherapy. Methods A multicentre, 16-week, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at 16 psychiatric in-patient centres throughout Germany. Inclusion criteria were adults aged 18-65 years with non-first episode schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and with a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of at least 70 and at least two items of the positive symptoms subscale rated at least 4. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either amisulpride plus olanzapine, amisulpride plus placebo, or olanzapine plus placebo (1:1:1), and block randomisation was stratified by study site. To keep patients and investigators masked throughout the duration of the trial, amisulpride, olanzapine, and placebo were administered as identical capsules. Flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (amisulpride plus placebo, 200-800 mg per day) or olanzapine (olanzapine plus placebo, 5-20 mg per day) was compared with a combination of amisulpride plus olanzapine. The primary outcome was symptom reduction measured by the PANSS total score after 8 weeks, in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients randomly assigned to an intervention and receiving at least one study drug dose). As determined a priori, group differences were examined by t tests (Bonferroni-Holm-adjustment) followed by pre-planned Bayesian analyses as well as imputation methods based on mixed models to account for missing values and post-hoc ANCOVA adjusting for PANSS baseline scores. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01609153; the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00003603; and the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT-No. 2011-002463-20. Findings Between June 15, 2012, and Dec 15, 2018, 13 692 patients were assessed for eligibility. 13 364 patients were excluded (including for not meeting inclusion criteria, declining to participate, or inappropriate reasons for changing pharmacological treatment), and 328 were then randomly assigned to an intervention group. 112 patients were randomly assigned to receive amisulpride plus olanzapine, 109 were randomly assigned to receive amisulpride plus placebo, and 107 were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine plus placebo. 321 patients were analysed for the primary outcome in the modified intention-to-treat population after exclusion of screening failures and patients who did not receive the intervention (110 for amisulpride plus olanzapine, 109 for amisulpride plus placebo, and 102 for olanzapine plus placebo). Among the 321 patients who were randomly assigned to intervention groups and analysed for the primary outcome, 229 (71%) were male, 92 (29%) were female; the mean age was 40.2 years (SD 11.7); and 296 (92%) were White and 25 (8%) were classified as other ethnicity. PANSS total score improved significantly more at 8 weeks in the amisulpride plus olanzapine group (-29.6 [SD 14.5]) than in the olanzapine plus placebo group (-24.1 [13.4], p=0.049, Cohen's d=0.396). A significant difference was not observed in reduction of PANSS total score between the amisulpride and olanzapine group compared with the amisulpride and placebo group (-25.2 [SD 15 .9], p=0.095, Cohen's d=0.29). After 8 weeks and 16 weeks, sexual dysfunction, weight, and waist circumference increase were significantly higher for patients receiving amisulpride plus olanzapine than for those receiving amisulpride plus placebo, with no differences in serious adverse events. Two patients died during study participation; one randomly assigned to the amisulpride plus olanzapine group, and one assigned to the olanzapine plus placebo group (both assessed with no relation to treatment). Interpretation The advantages of amisulpride plus olanzapine have to be weighed against a higher propensity for side-effects. The use of this specific combination therapy could be an alternative to monotherapy in certain clinical situations, but side-effects should be considered. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved